MEDiC: Multi-objective Exploration of Distillation from CLIP
Organizations: Min H. Kao Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science The University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN 37996
Abstract
Masked image modeling (MIM) methods typically operate in either raw pixel space (reconstructing masked patches) or latent feature space (aligning with a pre-trained teacher). We present MEDiC (Multi-objective Exploration of Distillation from CLIP), a framework that combines both spaces in a single pipeline through three complementary objectives: patch-level token distillation from a frozen CLIP encoder, global CLS alignment, and pixel reconstruction via a lightweight decoder. We conduct a systematic investigation of the design space surrounding this multi-objective framework. First, we show that all three objectives provide complementary information, with the full combination reaching 73.9% kNN accuracy on ImageNet-1K. Second, we introduce hierarchical clustering with relative position bias for evolved masking and find that, despite producing more semantically coherent masks than prior methods, evolved masking does not outperform simple block masking in the teacher-guided distillation setting, a finding we attribute to the teacher's inherent semantic awareness. Third, we reveal that optimal scalar loss weights are extremely fragile, with small perturbations causing drops of up to 17 percentage points in kNN accuracy. Our framework achieves 73.9% kNN and 85.1% fine-tuning accuracy with ViT-Base at 300 epochs.
Figures & tables
| Imagenette | Imagewoof | ImageNet-1K | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Backbone | Epochs | top-1 | top-5 | top-1 | top-5 | top-1 | |
| MAE [ 11 ] | ViT-B | 800 | 54.75 | 89.35 | 30.29 | 76.79 | 9.53 |
| BEiT [ 2 ] | ViT-B | 800 | 30.06 | 75.69 | 20.26 | 70.40 | 1.93 |
| BootMAE [ 8 ] | ViT-B | 800 | 70.70 | 94.22 | 41.74 | 84.53 | 19.61 |
| CMAE [ 14 ] | ViT-B | 800 | 77.91 | 96.33 | 42.84 | 85.24 | 21.17 |
| SimMIM [ 23 ] | ViT-B | 400 | 51.44 | 87.21 | 30.16 | 74.65 | 8.40 |
| Method | Backbone | Epochs | kNN | Linear | Fine-tune |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MAE | ViT-L | 400 | 9.53 | 54.60 | 83.4 |
| BEiT | ViT-B | 800 | 1.93 | 52.10 | 80.12 |
| BootMAE | ViT-B | 800 | 19.61 | 52.07 | 84.0 |
| CMAE | ViT-B | 800 | 21.17 | 60.00 | 84.4 |
| SimMIM | ViT-B | 400 | 8.40 | 58.09 | 83.8 |
| SemMAE | ViT-B | 800 | 19.13 | 54.62 | 84.5 |
| Method | Backbone | Epochs | mIoU |
|---|---|---|---|
| BEiT [ 2 ] | ViT-B | 800 | 45.6 |
| MAE [ 11 ] | ViT-B | 1600 | 48.1 |
| BEiT v2 [ 19 ] | ViT-B | 300 | 52.7 |
| MILAN [ 12 ] | ViT-B | 400 | 52.7 |
| CAE v2 [ 24 ] | ViT-B | 300 | 53.4 |
| MaskDistill [ 18 ] | ViT-B | 300 | 53.8 |
| Latent-Rep | Raw-Pix | Latent-Disc | kNN Top-1 |
| 14.1 | |||
| 9.5 | |||
| 68.6 | |||
| 71.4 | |||
| 72.3 | |||
| 73.9 |
| Masking Method | kNN Top-1 |
|---|---|
| Block Masking | 68.59 |
| Evolved Masking + EM | 47.52 |
| Evolved Masking + HC (Ours) | 64.56 |
| Objectives | Sparse | Dense |
|---|---|---|
| Token + CLS | 75.7 | 74.1 |
| Token + Pixel | 71.5 | 66.9 |
| Token + Pixel + CLS | 73.9 | 69.3 |
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Hyperparameters | Base Size |
|---|---|
| Layers | 12 |
| Hidden size | 768 |
| FFN inner hidden size | 3072 |
| Attention heads | 12 |
| Layer scale | 0.1 |
| Patch size |
| Hyperparameters | ViT-B/16 |
|---|---|
| Peak learning rate | 5e-4 |
| Epochs | 100 |
| Warmup epochs | 20 |
| Batch size | 1024 |
| Adam | 1e-8 |
| Adam | (0.9, 0.999) |
| Hyperparameters | ViT-B/16 |
|---|---|
| Peak learning rate | 5e-4 |
| Epochs | 100 |
| Warmup epochs | 10 |
| Layer-wise learning rate decay | 0.65 |
| Batch size | 1024 |
| Adam | 1e-8 |
| Hyperparameters | ViT-B/16 |
|---|---|
| Relative positional embeddings | ✓ |
| Shared relative positional embeddings | ✗ |
| Epochs | 50 |
| Peak learning rate | 0.5e-4 |
| Fine-tuning steps | 160K |
| Batch size | 16 |
| Hyperparameters | ViT-B/16 |
|---|---|
| Mask type | evolved |
| Mask ratio | 0.75 |
| Mask | 1.7 |
| Mask | 0.9 |
| Clustering Method | HC |
| Min Clusters | 10 |
| Dec. Loss | DLW | CLW | kNN Top-1 | kNN Top-5 | Best Epoch | Fine-tune |
| Pixel Reconstruction Weight (DLW) Variations | ||||||
| L2 | 0.50 | – | 61.57 | 82.21 | 299 | 82.70 |
| L2 | 0.40 | – | 56.74 | 79.13 | 274 | 83.30 |
| L2 | 0.30 | – | 63.26 | 84.45 | 299 | 83.63 |
| L2 | 0.20 | – | 62.27 | 83.11 | 247 | 84.00 |
| L2 | 0.10 | – | 63.30 | 84.65 | 225 | 84.70 |
| Method | Mask Ratio | kNN Top-1 | kNN Top-5 | Best Epoch | ||
| BM | – | – | 0.50 | 68.59 | 88.26 | 275 |
| Mask Ratio = 0.50 | ||||||
| EM | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.50 | 47.52 | 70.04 | 200 |
| HC | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.50 | 51.92 | 75.79 | 148 |
| HC | 1.6 | 0.5 | 0.50 | 62.52 | 84.10 | 200 |
| HC | 1.4 | 0.5 | 0.50 | 52.91 | 76.66 | 100 |
Masked Image Modeling
Masked image modeling trains visual representations by hiding image regions and learning to reconstruct their pixels or features.
See all 42 papers